I got my IR last August and finally got to log my 1st post-checkride actual
approach. All while the airport I was landing at was reporting 10 miles and
clear below 12,000. More like 1,200. All day long this place was reporting
clear skies. All day long it varied between 1,200 and 1,700.

ATC read me the AWOS before I heard it and we were planning a decent to MSA
then a visual landing. The bases were only about 700-800 below me, but I
just couldn't keep visual. I ended up flying a full procedure turn LOC
approach. Bah. Just enough to keep my in the clouds until descending past
the FAF. (and yes, i will be logging that approach <g>)

Lesson learned? Be prepared. I had already loaded the approach into the GPS
just in case, & had everything ready for it. Also, I'll believe reported
weather when I'm actually in it. Third lesson? Be very familiar with the
equipment in your plane. I was flying a Diamond Star I was recently checked
out it. We had gone through auto pilot usage, and I used it for most of the
flight, but when it was time to make the procedure turn, the plane wasn't
turning. I didn't have something set. I think I forgot to switch the 530
from GPS mode to VLOC once I activated the approach. Shoot I can't remember
if I even hit APR on the autopilot now that I think of it. I ended up hand
flying the approach.

Cool experience. Very rare to get such benign IMC to learn in.

--



PP-ASEL, instrument

"Steven Barnes" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I got my IR last August and finally got to log my 1st post-checkride
> actual
> approach. All while the airport I was landing at was reporting 10 miles
> and
> clear below 12,000. More like 1,200. All day long this place was reporting
> clear skies. All day long it varied between 1,200 and 1,700.
>
> ATC read me the AWOS before I heard it and we were planning a decent to
> MSA
> then a visual landing. The bases were only about 700-800 below me, but I
> just couldn't keep visual. I ended up flying a full procedure turn LOC
> approach. Bah. Just enough to keep my in the clouds until descending past
> the FAF. (and yes, i will be logging that approach <g>)
>
> Lesson learned? Be prepared. I had already loaded the approach into the
> GPS
> just in case, & had everything ready for it. Also, I'll believe reported
> weather when I'm actually in it. Third lesson? Be very familiar with the
> equipment in your plane. I was flying a Diamond Star I was recently
> checked
> out it. We had gone through auto pilot usage, and I used it for most of
> the
> flight, but when it was time to make the procedure turn, the plane wasn't
> turning. I didn't have something set. I think I forgot to switch the 530
> from GPS mode to VLOC once I activated the approach. Shoot I can't
> remember
> if I even hit APR on the autopilot now that I think of it. I ended up hand
> flying the approach.
>
> Cool experience. Very rare to get such benign IMC to learn in.
>

What field?

"Steven Barnes" > wrote:
> I got my IR last August and finally got to log my 1st post-checkride actual
> approach. All while the airport I was landing at was reporting 10 miles and
> clear below 12,000. More like 1,200. All day long this place was reporting
> clear skies. All day long it varied between 1,200 and 1,700.

Yeah, it happens. Nothing, but nothing, beats a set of human eyeballs
in the location right now to report what the weather is doing. I've had
ATC try to sell me a visual when I'm looking at a solid cloud layer
below me. He's sitting in a room with no windows looking at a computer
readout of some automated system, but I'm looking at clouds. Who should
you believe?

> ATC read me the AWOS before I heard it and we were planning a decent to MSA
> then a visual landing. The bases were only about 700-800 below me, but I
> just couldn't keep visual. I ended up flying a full procedure turn LOC
> approach. Bah. Just enough to keep my in the clouds until descending past
> the FAF. (and yes, i will be logging that approach <g>)

After you landed, did you give ATC or FSS a pirep? It would have helped
the next guy out. Wouldn't it be nice to be the next guy listening to
the AWOS from 30 miles out and have ATC tell you, "I've got a pirep from
10 minutes ago of 1200 overcast"?

> Third lesson? Be very familiar with the
> equipment in your plane. I was flying a Diamond Star I was recently checked
> out it. We had gone through auto pilot usage, and I used it for most of the
> flight, but when it was time to make the procedure turn, the plane wasn't
> turning. I didn't have something set. I think I forgot to switch the 530
> from GPS mode to VLOC once I activated the approach. Shoot I can't remember
> if I even hit APR on the autopilot now that I think of it. I ended up hand
> flying the approach.

Most instructors (I'm guilty of this too) try to keep their students
from using "crutches" like GPS and autopilots. The idea is we want to
make sure the basic skills get learned. Unfortunately, this often
results in students not knowing how to use these very useful systems to
their best advantage. Setting up for an approach in IMC is no time to
be trying to figure out how the autopilot works.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yeah, it happens. Nothing, but nothing, beats a set of human eyeballs
> in the location right now to report what the weather is doing. I've had
> ATC try to sell me a visual when I'm looking at a solid cloud layer
> below me. He's sitting in a room with no windows looking at a computer
> readout of some automated system, but I'm looking at clouds. Who should
> you believe?
>

You should believe your eyes. But you should also understand that it
generally isn't a choice between a set of human eyeballs in the location
right now to report what the weather is doing and an AWOS, it's a choice
between an AWOS and nothing.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Steven Barnes" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > I got my IR last August and finally got to log my 1st post-checkride
> > actual
> > approach. All while the airport I was landing at was reporting 10 miles
> > and
> > clear below 12,000. More like 1,200. All day long this place was
reporting
> > clear skies. All day long it varied between 1,200 and 1,700.
[snip]

> What field?
>
>

Effingham, IL 1H2
Usually they're pretty good with the AWOS.

I didn't get the chance to file a Pirep, but ATC found out about the clouds
thru me. Although that doesn't help the guy planning a flight. 20 miles to
the north west it was perfectly clear.

"Steven Barnes" > wrote in
m:

> I got my IR last August and finally got to log my 1st post-checkride
> actual approach. All while the airport I was landing at was reporting
> 10 miles and clear below 12,000. More like 1,200. All day long this
> place was reporting clear skies. All day long it varied between 1,200
> and 1,700.

I've also seen the ASOS reporting fog, low visibility and low ceilings,
and had the airport in sight 30 miles out, and no problems all the way
in. Automated systems do lie sometimes, but they're better than nothing.

--
Regards,

Stan

> Nothing, but nothing, beats a set of human eyeballs
>in the location right now to report what the weather is doing.

Human eyeballs can't always be trusted, either. Returning home to a
non-towered field shortly after dark, I was told by Unicom that the
ceiling was 700 feet. But the aircraft just ahead of me reported
breaking out at minimums--200 feet. I, too, broke out at 200 feet.

The observer was at the terminal, half a mile from the end of the
runway.

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
>
> Human eyeballs can't always be trusted, either. Returning home to a
> non-towered field shortly after dark, I was told by Unicom that the
> ceiling was 700 feet. But the aircraft just ahead of me reported
> breaking out at minimums--200 feet. I, too, broke out at 200 feet.
>
> The observer was at the terminal, half a mile from the end of the
> runway.
>

Was the "observer" a certified weather observer?

In article >,
vincent p. norris > wrote:

> > Nothing, but nothing, beats a set of human eyeballs
> >in the location right now to report what the weather is doing.
>
> Human eyeballs can't always be trusted, either. Returning home to a
> non-towered field shortly after dark, I was told by Unicom that the
> ceiling was 700 feet. But the aircraft just ahead of me reported
> breaking out at minimums--200 feet. I, too, broke out at 200 feet.
>
> The observer was at the terminal, half a mile from the end of the
> runway.
>
> vince norris

Machines are much better at precise measurements than people. I'm not
sure I could tell the difference between 200 OVC and 700 OVC by eye, and
I'm sure I couldn't between 1000 and 2000.

What humans are much better at is "big picture" observations. No human
is going to think it's overcast when it's clear because he got some bird
**** in his eye. That's the kind of mistake it takes a machine to make.

Most weather ceilings are now determined by machine (a laser
ceilometer), even if it's relayed by a human. The old balloon method
that determined ceilings by how long it took for the balloon to enter
the clouds is only used these days at those sites that don't have a
working ceilometer.

JPH

vincent p. norris wrote:
>> Nothing, but nothing, beats a set of human eyeballs
>>in the location right now to report what the weather is doing.
>
>
> Human eyeballs can't always be trusted, either. Returning home to a
> non-towered field shortly after dark, I was told by Unicom that the
> ceiling was 700 feet. But the aircraft just ahead of me reported
> breaking out at minimums--200 feet. I, too, broke out at 200 feet.
>
> The observer was at the terminal, half a mile from the end of the
> runway.
>
> vince norris

I supposed balloons were used only for atmospheric sounding anymore.
I didn't know they were still used *anywhere* as a substitute for =
ceilometers.
I'm pretty sure I remember ceilometers being deployed 45 or more years =
ago.

"J Haggerty" > wrote in message =
news:Qk_Bd.4488$2_4.750@okepread06...
> Most weather ceilings are now determined by machine (a laser=20
> ceilometer), even if it's relayed by a human. The old balloon method=20
> that determined ceilings by how long it took for the balloon to enter=20
> the clouds is only used these days at those sites that don't have a=20
> working ceilometer.
>=20
> JPH
>=20

>Was the "observer" a certified weather observer?

I believe so; his hourly reports went to the NWS.

vince norris

>

>Machines are much better at precise measurements than people. I'm not
>sure I could tell the difference between 200 OVC and 700 OVC by eye, and
>I'm sure I couldn't between 1000 and 2000.

I don't claim to be expert at that, either, but when the previous a/c
reported breaking out at minimums, 200 feet, the observer continued to
report 700 feet.

vince norris

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in
:

> I supposed balloons were used only for atmospheric sounding anymore.
> I didn't know they were still used *anywhere* as a substitute for
> ceilometers. I'm pretty sure I remember ceilometers being deployed 45
> or more years ago.

Nope, they're still around. Balloons are a lot cheaper than ceilometers,
especially if you only need an exact ceiling now and then.

--
Regards,

Stan

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
>
> I believe so; his hourly reports went to the NWS.
>

Where was this? When? How did he determine the ceiling?

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> Nope, they're still around. Balloons are a lot cheaper than =
ceilometers,=20
> especially if you only need an exact ceiling now and then.
>=20
> Stan

Well, yes, a balloon is cheaper than a ceilometer.
But I'd have guessed that over the life cycle of a ceilometer,
the controlling costs would involve the time a meteorologist spends
watching and timing the rising balloons.
But what do I know? I'm an engineer, not an accountant.

John R. Copeland > wrote:
>Well, yes, a balloon is cheaper than a ceilometer.
>But I'd have guessed that over the life cycle of a ceilometer,
>the controlling costs would involve the time a meteorologist spends
>watching and timing the rising balloons.

Not to mention that after you're done taking your measurement, you get
to use the ceiliometer again.

>Where was this? When? How did he determine the ceiling?
>
About 15 years ago. I don't know how he arrived at the ceiling.

I'd rather not identify the field, since you sound like you intend to
pursue the matter. The field manager has changed since then, the
observer no doubt is also gone, and the statute of limitations has
expired.

vince norris

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in
:

> Well, yes, a balloon is cheaper than a ceilometer.
> But I'd have guessed that over the life cycle of a ceilometer,
> the controlling costs would involve the time a meteorologist spends
> watching and timing the rising balloons.
> But what do I know? I'm an engineer, not an accountant.

Then you know TANSTAAFL. For a heliport, which may be temporary or which
may be leased for a relatively short term, a ceilometer isn't always cost
effective. The weather observer (not a meterologist, which requires a
college degree) only uses the baloons when the ceiling is critical,
perhaps one day per month, and estimates it the rest of the time. When
not observing the weather (s)he does other work, usually dispatching or
working on aircraft. Not everyone flies from an airport with long paved
concrete runways, but they may still need accurate observations for
instrument approaches.

--
Regards,

Stan